Madras High Court
S.Murugesan vs The State By The on 27 January, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
1 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.25905 of 2018
and
Crl.MP.Nos.14849 & 14851 of 2018
1.S.Murugesan
2.V.Shanmugasundaram
3.S.Kumari ..Petitioners
.Vs.
1.The State by the
Inspector of Police,
J13- Tharamani Police Station,
Chennai 600 113.
(Crime No.1092 of 2013)
2.S.Marudachalam ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to
SC.No.310 of 2018, on the file of the Mahila Court (Mahalir
Neethimandram) Chennai and quash the final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gunalan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R 1
No Appearance for R 2
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.310 of 2018, on the file of the Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram) Chennai.
2.The 1st petitioner married the deceased Priya on 16.09.2011. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner. It is stated that there is one male child out of the said wedlock.
3.There was some misunderstanding between the 1st petitioner and the deceased and ultimately the deceased took the extreme step of consuming poison and she died on 07.09.2013. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1092 of 2013, under Section 174 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018
4.An RDO enquiry was conducted and a report came to be filed on 11.09.2013, which also forms part of the investigation conducted by the respondent Police. In the RDO report, it is stated that the suicide was not as a result of demand for any dowry and the same took place only because of the cruelty meted against the decreased Priya.
5.Pursuant to the report submitted by the RDO, the FIR was altered for an offence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. On completion of the investigation, a final report came to be filed against the petitioners before the Court below and the Court below has taken cognizance for the above said offences. Challenging the same, the present criminal original petition has been filed before this Court.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are absolutely no materials to substantiate the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that there was no intentional aiding or the abetment on the part of the petitioners and no positive steps to that effect has been attributed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018 against the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that except for a general allegation made against the petitioners that they committed cruelty, there is absolutely no reference to any specific incident that took place in order to establish the charge under Section 498-A of IPC.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners have been unnecessarily roped in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Police submitted that there was a sustained cruelty that was committed against the deceased and that has led to the deceased taking the extreme step of consuming poison. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the statement of the witnesses and also the report of the RDO, clearly shows that the petitioners have treated the deceased with cruelty and hence the petitioners will have to necessarily face the trial and establish their defense. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018
9.The 2nd respondent has been served notice and there is no representation either in person or through counsel.
10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
11. In order to maintain a charge under Section 306 of IPC, there must be a positive act on the part of the accused persons in instigating and adding the commission of suicide to establish mens rea to commit abetment. Evens the words that are uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea in order to constitute inspection to commit suicide. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ikishori Lal v. State Of M.P reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797. It will also be beneficial to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Mohan v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018
12.In the present case, no suicide note is available. Therefore, this Court has as to see whether the statements given by the witnesses, attributes any positive act on the part of the petitioners to sustain the charge under Section 306 of IPC.
13.The statements of LW-1 to LW-4 who are the father, mother, sister and brother of the deceased are verbatim the same. They only state that there was a continued misunderstanding between the 1st petitioner and the deceased and they had to passify them on many occasions. According to them, the deceased consumed poison only because of the mental cruelty undergone by her in the hands of the petitioners. The RDO, who had submitted the report has stated about an incident wherein, the 1st petitioner did not call the relatives of the deceased while celebrating the birthday of the child and when this was questioned by the deceased, there was some verbal argument and all of a sudden the deceased rushed into a room and took the extreme step of committing suicide. Apart from these materials, there is no other material that is available against the petitioners. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018
14.The materials collected by the prosecution is not enough to sustain the charge under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioners. The test laid down in the judgments referred supra is not satisfied and therefore, no useful purpose will be served in making the petitioners undergo the ordeal of facing the charge under Section 306 of IPC.
15.Insofar as the offense under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the provision itself explains the term “cruelty” to mean any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide. In the present case, the witnesses as well as the report of the RDO make out a prima facie caseagainst the 1st petitioner. Insofar as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned, except for some general allegations, there is absolutely no material to sustain the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. They have been roped in just because they happen to be the parents of A-1.
16.In view of the above discussion, insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, even though this Court held that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018 charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained, on the materials collected by the prosecution, a case has been made out under Section 498-A of IPC. Useful reference can be made in this regard to the judgment of this Court in Srinivasan v. State and Others reported in (2019) 2 LW Crl.633. Therefore, the 1st petitioner has to necessarily face the trial for the charge under Section 498-A of IPC.
17.Insofar as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned, this Court has held that no case has been made out to sustain the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against them is an abuse of process of Court which requires the interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
18.In the result, this criminal original petition is partly allowed and the charge against the petitioners under Section 306 of IPC is quashed. Insofar as the charge under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, it is sustained insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned and quashed insofar as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ The Court below is directed to complete the 9 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018 proceedings in S.C.No.310 of 2018, on the file of the Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram) Chennai, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day today basis in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in [2015(1) MLJ (Crl) 288]. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.01.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No KP To
1.The State by the Inspector of Police, J13- Tharamani Police Station, Chennai 600 113.
2.Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram) Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., KP https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10 Crl.OP No. 25905 of 2018 CRL.O.P.No.25905 of 2018 27.01.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/